----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alex Howansky <alex(at)wankwood(dot)com>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 11:57 PM
Subject: Re: [SQL] how to create index on timestamp field in pre v7
> Alex Howansky <alex(at)wankwood(dot)com> writes:
> > My question is, how "equivalent" are these types?
> They're the same code: we jacked up the name "timestamp" and rolled
> old datetime code underneath. Strictly a matter of coming closer to
> the SQL standard names for these datatypes.
> > Can I use datetime_ops to index a timestamp field in a v6.5.3
> Similarly, "datetime_ops" in 6.5 is now "timestamp_ops".
> As a rule, I'd suggest not bothering with opclasses in index
> declarations. The only situation where you need to select one is
> where there is more than one possible opclass for the same datatype.
> This holds for some of the geometric types, but not for any plain
> types like numerics or date/time types. (You could think of an
> as specifying which sort order the index uses...)
Agreed - but note that pg_dump currently produces CREATE INDEX
statements with opclasses included.
That means running a script created by pg_dump v.6.5.x will fail under
7.0 because there is no index opclass of the type datetime?
Judging from my brief experiments that looks to be the case, anyway.
It looks like replacing all occurrences of datetime with timestamp in
the script works - even for the few functions I have that used the
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andrzej Mazurkiewicz||Date: 2000-02-25 13:31:15|
|Subject: [HACKERS] Re: Interested in writing a PostgreSQL article?|
|Previous:||From: Michael Reifenberger||Date: 2000-02-25 09:50:58|
|Subject: failing to compile -current on FreeBSD|
pgsql-sql by date
|Next:||From: Nedu||Date: 2000-02-25 13:54:13|
|Subject: Problem - Postgres Running continously|
|Previous:||From: Postmaster||Date: 2000-02-25 05:48:29|
|Subject: DELIVERY FAILURE: User laszlo_acs (email@example.com) not listed
in public Name & Address Book|